Nigel Sutcliffe (Ind, Worplesdon) has lodged five formal complaints against fellow councillor Vivienne Johnson (Lib Dem, Christchurch) alleging maladministration and impropriety over her handling of the council's decision to switch over to a cabinet-style government on a trial basis from May. Mr Sutcliffe has written to the district auditor accusing Mrs Johnson - the chairman of the policy and resources committee - of failing to follow correct procedure during her committee's debate over this highly controversial issue. In his letter to the auditor, Mr Sutcliffe stated: "The change in council structure from the traditional committee system to a new cabinet structure was moved and passed by the policy and resources committee with no reference to the full council.

One quarter of the council disenfranchised three- quarters of the councillors who were elected less than a year ago to protect the democracy of the borough council and to represent the residents of their constituencies." He claimed that the move was improper and "possibly illegal" and that Mrs Johnson had misled the policy and resources committee into believing it was debating a recommendation and not an all-binding resolution. Mr Sutcliffe went on: "Despite the commitment of the council to being 'consulting and responding', there was no proper consultation with councillors or residents before this decision was taken. This is gravely concerning and of major and urgent importance to the residents and the council of Guildford." He concluded: "I believe they are instances of impropriety and maladministration as well as being undemocratic and immoral." Mrs Johnson only discovered that Mr Sutcliffe had written to the auditor when the Surrey Advertiser contacted her.

She said: "Mr Sutcliffe is entitled to take the matter up with the district auditor who, I am confident, will conclude that the allegations of maladministration and impropriety are absolutely without substance." She added: "As a committee chairman I was following recently agreed procedures and, in fact, the full council voted overwhelmingly to let the decision stand when Mr Sutcliffe tried to reverse it at the council meeting. "Sadly, this is another in a long list of tirades which distract from the difficult issues faced by the council." The borough council's chief executive, David Watts, said: "In my opinion the procedures at the policy and resources committee were correct and complied with the council's standing orders which are set out at the beginning of the agenda. "Three councillors had the opportunity to suspend the resolution but they were defeated by the majority of the full council." o Mike Pooley (Ind, Tongham) has criticised the council for only agreeing to send out copies of the Local Government Bill to all council members on the day after the full council meeting.

Mr Pooley received a letter dated February 3 (the morning after the meeting) from the council's clerk and solicitor, Helen Sutherland, stating: "Copies of the Local Government Bill were originally circulated to members of the policy and resources committee. However, in view of the importance of the document and the level of interest expressed by members, copies of the bill have now been circulated to all members of the council." Mr Pooley said: "This is just adding insult to injury. I'm beginning to wonder whether we, the Guildford Borough Council, are complying to the letter of the law."